2017 (9) TMI 837 - HC - Income Tax

Application for issuing notification under section 80IA( 4)(iii) rejected - documents accompanied by the representation of the petitioner not taken into account before rejection of the application - Held that - The documents accompanied by the representation of the petitioner dated 21.4.2014 were not taken into account before rejection of the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to produce any conclusive proof of the service of the said communication dated 21.4.2014 to the authority. Nevertheless, when there is no time limit fixed either in the legislature or in the scheme for production of documents in support of the application for issuing notification, in the larger interest of justice, we would request the authority to consider such additional documents before taking a fresh final decision. Terminating the case of the petitioner without considering the additional documents sought to be relied upon, only on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove conclusively that such documents were inwarded before the authority before the final order of rejection was passed, would be just too harsh. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 13.5.2014 is set aside. The authority shall pass fresh order after considering the additional documents accompanying the petitioner s representation dated 21.4.2014 made in response to the summons dated 16.4.2014

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting application for notification under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their application for issuing a notification under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner claimed eligibility for deduction under section 80IA(4) as they had developed an industrial park before 31.3.2011. The competent authority rejected the application on 13.5.2014 after detailed correspondence with the petitioner. The authority doubted the petitioner's fulfillment of essential requirements for exemption related to industrial park development and maintenance. The petitioner argued that they responded to a notice with a detailed representation and provided documents on 21.4.2014, which were not considered in the rejection order. The authority claimed no receipt of such communication. The impugned order was based on the lack of response to notices dated 25.2.2014 and 16.4.2014, thus not considering the additional documents submitted by the petitioner.

The impugned order did not consider the additional documents submitted by the petitioner along with their representation dated 21.4.2014, as the authority claimed no response to earlier notices. The petitioner failed to provide conclusive proof of the submission of documents before the authority. However, since no time limit was fixed for document submission, the court requested the authority to reconsider the additional documents before making a fresh decision. Terminating the petitioner's case without considering the additional documents would be unjust. Therefore, the court set aside the order dated 13.5.2014 and directed the authority to pass a fresh order after reviewing the additional documents submitted by the petitioner.

The court ordered the setting aside of the impugned order dated 13.5.2014 and instructed the authority to review the additional documents provided by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to supply a copy of the representation dated 21.4.2014 with accompanying documents to the authority by 25.9.2017. The authority was required to make a fresh decision preferably by 31.12.2017 based on the new information provided. The petition was disposed of accordingly.